Home

The LTDA set up hidden cameras at 2 traffic light junctions and recorded how many cyclists rode through them on red. You can see the video on their website here;

http://www.ltda.co.uk/#prettyPhoto/0/

35 comments

Avatar
PJ McNally [591 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This the same LTDA that runs "Badgesafe" for its members?

i.e. the scheme to provide legal cover for idiot taxi drivers with 12 points on their license - plead hardship, get off scot-free?

Avatar
Brianr56 [9 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Screeching denials and counter accusations aren't going to get it done, people. We have a problem.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
Brianr56 wrote:

Screeching denials and counter accusations aren't going to get it done, people. We have a problem.

"We"?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

If one were to film the near-universal illegal parking and speeding by motorists would drivers then start posting on their websites about how "we" have a problem?

Avatar
jacknorell [971 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Brianr56 wrote:

Screeching denials and counter accusations aren't going to get it done, people. We have a problem.

No, we don't.

Next, make a nice little collage at a busy junction of how taxi drivers act... that'd be interesting.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1752 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm not sure the title makes sense. 53% of RLJ-ing cyclists filmed?!? Why didn't they film the other 47%? And what % of cyclists RLJ?

I think I know the answer.....but how can I be sure.

Seems like an accurate picture though.

Avatar
dunnoh [199 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm getting fed up with this stuff. I commute everyday and ride at the weekend. Some car drivers are idiots. Some cyclists are idiots. If I read half the sh*t on here I would smash my bike and buy a tank. Cant fellow cyclists realise that we have won - we weigh less, we have better mental health, we have more money blah blah blah.

Avatar
Joeinpoole [441 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I'm not sure the title makes sense. 53% of RLJ-ing cyclists filmed?!? Why didn't they film the other 47%? And what % of cyclists RLJ?

I think I know the answer.....but how can I be sure.

Seems like an accurate picture though.

Sorry about the confusing title!

I think LTDA have been fairly selective with their statistics though. If you watch the unedited footage from both junctions (available on the same link) then I reckon I saw fewer than 10% of the total cyclists who passed the junction went through on red. The vast majority were passing through on green. Trouble is LTDA, for the purpose of making their point, are clearly only counting the cyclists when the lights are on red.

The unedited footage also shows how often the 'bike box' is occupied by a motor vehicle too which is certainly why some of the cyclists crossed the ASL to get ahead of the traffic. I've no doubt that LTDA counted them as RLJ's too even if they went no further.

Avatar
GoingRoundInCycles [133 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

Neither Taxi drivers nor general motorists are trying to persuade the authorities to do something radical to improve taxi driving and motoring safety at the moment. They don't have a problem.

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously. Hard to argue that case when footage indicates that 50%+ of cyclists in 1 hour at two separate sites clearly don't give a toss about either the law or indeed their own safety or the safety of pedestrians.

Avatar
mrmo [2088 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

so where were all the minicabs past the ASL????

And the 53% is b******s most obeyed the law. yes 53% of those who should have stopped didn't but that is very different to 53% of ALL cyclists broke the law. I did notice a fair few Cars, buses and HGVs in the ASL....

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

I think LTDA have been fairly selective with their statistics though. If you watch the unedited footage from both junctions (available on the same link) then I reckon I saw fewer than 10% of the total cyclists who passed the junction went through on red. The vast majority were passing through on green. Trouble is LTDA, for the purpose of making their point, are clearly only counting the cyclists when the lights are on red.

That does sound as if they presented the figures in a very misleading way. I wonder how hard it would be to get similar figures for motorists if you used the same methodology and chose the right junction? Especially if you counted those entering the ASL on red as jumping the red (which I think technically it is). I know one junction where during rush hour the motorists going through "just after it went red" pretty much wipe out the pedestrian phase.

Its a propaganda war really, nothing to do with dispassionate study of an issue.
(Which is just plain depressing - human nature sucks!)

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
1 like
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

Neither Taxi drivers nor general motorists are trying to persuade the authorities to do something radical to improve taxi driving and motoring safety at the moment. They don't have a problem.

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously. Hard to argue that case when footage indicates that 50%+ of cyclists in 1 hour at two separate sites clearly don't give a toss about either the law or indeed their own safety or the safety of pedestrians.

The problem is there is no 'we' in the sense you are using the word.

If you personally know a RLJer (of the more reckless type, at least, especially one who barges through pedestrians) then by all means remonstrate with them personally. But I don't accept that my right to be safe as a cyclist or pedestrian is dependent on what random other people with bikes do at red lights.

Avatar
GoingRoundInCycles [133 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously.

The problem is there is no 'we' in the sense you are using the word.

By "We", I meant cyclists. If getting the authorities to take cyclists' rights to safety more seriously is not a concern of yours, I sincerely apologise.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

-nm-

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1752 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Actually the practicalities of getting statistics on red light jumping is pretty hard. You have to have lights and they have to be turning red.

If all the RLJers turn up at a green light it skews the stats, and if they all turn up at red lights (and the non-RLJers don't) then it skews the stats. But the probabilities is that they will even themselves out over time.

As Goingroundincycles says this is an issue for cyclists and cycle campaigners. How can you argue for better road safety and better policing of other road users if cyclists are seen to be clearly and regularly breaking the law.

Poor cycling etiquette hurts all cyclists, and does not move the issues forward politically. You have to look at all the political interests and they are equally competing for the ears of politicians, for derestriction or regulation, and the more blameless one minority group can appear it is harder to attack.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

if you're going to argue that no improvements can be made before a certain group of vehicles behaves, then you'll be waiting a long time for any new infrastructure, be it for bikes or motor vehicles. this 'behave and we'll talk' attitude only applies to bikes, it seems.

incidentally the LTDA obviously picked those two junctions because they're filter junctions: there's no traffic flow to cross, so a bike filtering through a red light isn't going to impede anyone or risk a collision. i wonder what the results would be on a busy crossroads where a cyclist would actually be endangering themself by jumping the light?

Avatar
Gkam84 [9090 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

Avatar
David Portland [83 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Most impressed that the VERY FIRST VEHICLE in the unedited Hackney footage is a car sailing through a red light and turning right. Mildly disappointed that it wasn't a taxi.

Avatar
Joeinpoole [441 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Actually the practicalities of getting statistics on red light jumping is pretty hard. You have to have lights and they have to be turning red.

If all the RLJers turn up at a green light it skews the stats, and if they all turn up at red lights (and the non-RLJers don't) then it skews the stats. But the probabilities is that they will even themselves out over time.

I don't know how you ride but when I'm approaching a red light then I will be easing off and braking from at least a couple of hundred yards out with the intention of only arriving at the junction after the lights have changed. I'd assume I'm not alone in doing that and clearly such actions would undermine LTDA's means of collating their 'statistics' even further.

Avatar
ragtimecyclist [158 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Trying to keep up with the news recently around cyclist behaviour/accidents etc. is like being subjected to a propaganda war...different groups of road users seem intent on setting themselves off against each other rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion.

Some cyclists behave badly, as do some taxi drivers, HGV drivers, commuters, pedestrians etc. etc.

I don't have the answer, but rather than address the issue the LTDA are surely just stoking the flames?

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1752 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:

if you're going to argue that no improvements can be made before a certain group of vehicles behaves, then you'll be waiting a long time for any new infrastructure, be it for bikes or motor vehicles. this 'behave and we'll talk' attitude only applies to bikes, it seems.

We'll be waiting a long time then. I don't think any group is looking for infrastructure changes quite like the cycling lobby, and while cyclists 'appear' to be endangering themselves by cycling through red lights and not wearing helmets cyclists so when the call comes for 'something should be done', they say put a helmet on, or cycle carefully/don't break the rules.

I'm not saying it is right, but equally I don't feel like many cycling deaths don't come without the suspicion that cyclists aren't helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

You can't point the finger all around, but if you don't recognise that there are problems that need to be sorted (police stopping poor cycling behaviour is a start - as well as other road users exhibiting poor behaviour) then you don't really move the argument forward. There are as many cyclists on this website that recognise that the poor behaviour of other cyclists really doesn't help the perception of them.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

We'll be waiting a long time then. I don't think any group is looking for infrastructure changes quite like the cycling lobby, and while cyclists 'appear' to be endangering themselves by cycling through red lights and not wearing helmets cyclists so when the call comes for 'something should be done', they say put a helmet on, or cycle carefully/don't break the rules.

I'm not saying it is right, but equally I don't feel like many cycling deaths don't come without the suspicion that cyclists aren't helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

You can't point the finger all around, but if you don't recognise that there are problems that need to be sorted (police stopping poor cycling behaviour is a start - as well as other road users exhibiting poor behaviour) then you don't really move the argument forward. There are as many cyclists on this website that recognise that the poor behaviour of other cyclists really doesn't help the perception of them.

most of the poor behaviour stems from the inadequate and car-centric provision. deal with that. take that first junction, for example. in any civilised country it would have a filter for cyclists to allow them to do exactly what they're doing. the lights are *only* there to stop motorists clogging up the junction, so far as i can see. Cyclists don't clog the junction, and should be allowed to proceed for anything other than a pedestrian phase. what's hard about that? ideally it would be in a segregated lane too, eh.

the police should be stopping people who are in breach of the law anyway. that's kind of their job, and i have no problem with that.

Quote:

I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus

it's telling that the 'blind spot zone' that TfL roll out on their education mission is the same size and shape as a filter lane leading to an ASL. maybe it's something to do with that? just a thought.

//beyondthekerb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/20f4f-blindspot.jpg?w=450&h=300)

Avatar
dave atkinson [6251 posts] 2 years ago
1 like

There's a great quote by W Edwards Deming: "Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you're getting."

So if fallible people are regularly dying under the wheels of lorries, it's because the system's design facilitates that. change the design. let's not forget, also, that the people who regularly die under the wheels of lorries are neither the demographic that are more likely to run the lights, nor is their running of a red light often cited as a factor in their death. the point being that even if everyone stopped at the lights tomorrow, people would still die. because their failure to stop at the lights isn't what's causing them to die in the first place. this is a good read on that subject:

http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/it-isnt-about-cyclist-behavio...

Avatar
jamesv [14 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:

incidentally the LTDA obviously picked those two junctions because they're filter junctions

You're absolutely right. I cycle through the fortess junction every weekday on my commute and if I were to pick one junction on my route to skew statistics it would be this one - by far the most RLJing cyclists. That said, I don't dispute that there are too many cyclists who RLJ, just the methodology of this "survey".

Avatar
Cantab [95 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I think what the van does is certainly illegal because his front wheels appear to be across the second white line, there is no excuse for this given that the lights are amber when the van crosses the first line. Strictly with respect to ASL rules as set out in the RTA and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 the van has probably again broken the law. Its velocity appears to be such as it is capable of safely stopping before the first line therefore it falls under TSRGD 36(1)e but cannot use the exemption. To be sure we'd need the video to be shot from a little further back so as judge the velocity of the van (and see its brake lights).
Law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
Highway Code 178: https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

Avatar
Matt eaton [742 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This is just the LTDA looking for a fight. Forget about it.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

This is just the LTDA looking for a fight. Forget about it.

Aye, people tend to get a bit more aggressive when they are ripped to the tits on crack.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1752 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:

There's a great quote by W Edwards Deming: "Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you're getting."

So if fallible people are regularly dying under the wheels of lorries, it's because the system's design facilitates that. change the design. let's not forget, also, that the people who regularly die under the wheels of lorries are neither the demographic that are more likely to run the lights, nor is their running of a red light often cited as a factor in their death. the point being that even if everyone stopped at the lights tomorrow, people would still die. because their failure to stop at the lights isn't what's causing them to die in the first place. this is a good read on that subject:

http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/it-isnt-about-cyclist-behavio...

I don't dispute your case of the ASL and filter lane. I'm no fan of filter lanes/ASLs and the rest. But no one grew up knowing how to drive correctly, or for that matter cycling on the road. That's why we have cycling proficiency, and driving tests, so I would still challenge the idea that it is just an infrastructure issue. In fact if you make a system that enables you to use it while being brain dead then you are likely to make worse cyclists, not better ones, and the infrastructure is not going to stretch everywhere - though of course if mortality rates were down I would concede that as a victory for cycling regardless.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1752 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I would just sit behind him and wait for him to make his move. When the lights change I'm not going to be any slower than him.

It makes me cringe watching the RLJers go through. I think it is a little contagious. You notice that where one does it other are tempted to follow unless other cyclists have already stopped.

But the thing it made me think (which made me cringe) is watching the motorcyclist and moped riders sitting there correctly behind the ASL, but all the cyclists that appear just buzz straight on through. Some of the RLJers are stupider than others….joining moving traffic from the left. Idiotic and stupid.

People sitting in the ASL do not bother me though. I sort of wish they didn't really exist, except that they remind motorists that cyclists aren't petrol fuelled accelerating machines.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1240 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Well this morning I, on an impulse, waited at the first junction I came to and repeated this 'survey' with motorists. During 6 phases of the lights 4 cars stopped correctly at the back of the ASL, 2 crept into it, 4 went through accelerating on amber and 6 jumped the red. I didn't see a single cyclist jump the red (OK I didn't see a single cyclist!).

That pretty much dispenses with this 'study' as far as I'm concerned. Its pure propaganda.

Pages